Shiva_TD

The "estimated" 9,000 follow-up deaths has never been supported by any real study that I am aware of. Of course Chernobyl was a disaster but it was "ancient" nuclear technology implemeted by an incompetent government. Current nuclear reactors do not suffer the problems related to Chernobyl.

Yearly average between 1991-1999 for coal mining in the US:

Deaths 93 Injuries 21,351. This is considerably down from historic levels that used to be in the thousands of deaths annually.

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Fact Sheet 95-2 - Injury Trends in Mining

While people like to talk about how dangerous nuclear energy is there is a simple fact that it is far less dangerous than most other forms of energy. I wasn't albe to find the death and accident rate for solar or wind generation but I would guess it easily exceeds the death and injury rate for nuclear power.

AzTeK

Have no doubt that I want coal outlawed just as much as nuclear

For the sake of staying realistic, I say we keep gas. Using CHP engines gets a decent efficiency out of the fuel, and considering methane has the most opportune C to H ratio of all hydrocarbons, the amount of CO2 emitted is naturally a bit lower.

BTW, that estimate of 4000 deaths among the most highly exposed and further 5000 deaths among people "living nearby" is by an official IAEA report. There are actually around 7 million people still living that due to certain extent of effects from Tschernobyl are entitled to special aid, pensions and healthcare. Here's a list of civilian nuclear accidents: List of civilian nuclear accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to the costs of nuclear electricity, even the US government estimates it at around 6 ct/kWh. That is pretty much on spot with wind, for instance. British sources estimate the cost of large offshore wind plants at 5.5 cents/kWh even, although of course the estimates vary since both nuclear and wind have high start-up costs but very low running costs, which make them hard to judge economically compared to regular fuels. Wind power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Economics of new nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

Wheeldog

Your points are well taken. However, developing more fuel efficient engines will do little good if our overall consumption of oil does not significantly decline. It has been found that when more fuel efficient cars are sold people tend to drive more - ultimately cancelling out the savings on fuels.

When discussing the looming energy crisis the time factor must be taken into account. We have an enormous investment in the existing energy and transportation system. A transformation to a radically different system cannot occur with the flick of a switch or snap of the fingers. People are not simply going to pull off road and park their current cars and trucks and immediately buy new ones. Even if they could afford it (and very few can) the fuel efficient vehicles are not there to buy in large quantities. New vehicles must be designed and tested, factories built and equipped, metal ores mined and processed into parts, new energy refueling stations built and equipped, etc., etc.. A shift of this magnitude would take a decade and probably more to complete. The crisis we face will not wait.

There is really only one viable way to buy the time needed to make a transformation; we must use much less oil, and that means much less automotive fuels.

Slartibartfas

I was thinking more about energy efficient houses. You can safe with technology that is already today a mature one (Passivhaus Standard buildings) as much energy as the entire traffic sector needs as a whole. I would say thats quite a massive potential.

Regarding your point, the key is the fuel price. If it gets unreasonably expensive to be wasteful with the fuel, full efficiency rises substantially. That the fuel price will rise is inevitable. The only question is if it will do so slowly or fast enough to cause a lasting shock.

And exactly because of this point we have to start now with it and not wait until the time runs out for a smooth switch.

You should not forget that transportation makes up "only" about 1/3 of the total energy consumption. I consider it nonetheless to be a key area of course, but one should not loose the other 2/3 out of sight.

Grez

A. No matter what we do, we won't save the earth, if and when you find the reversal process let us know please

B. Oil is a joke as far as I'm concerned. Wait, we've had gasoline engines since the early 1920s? Unbelievable.

C. Make the gas companies realize we don't need them

D. They have the tech to do otherwise, but they don't, its called profit

E: I can go on and on and on

Grez

Oh, and if you wanted to know the profitablity rate of turning coal into oil its at about 40-60$ a barrel, very reasonable don't you think?

TheHat

I can go on about how I own stock in Exxon and how they send out a magazine called The Lamp every quarter or twice a year, and it is littered with alternate energy they are researching. Problem is, none are as efficient or cost effective as what we already have.

Slartibartfas

Of course it is. Since BP has changed its logo to a yellow/green flower like logo, every oil company has talked about hardly anything else than alternative energy, environment and clear air. Their PR departments are rotating...

That does mean little, neither in the one nor in the other direction.

Of course they are involved in alternative energies, they would be outright stupid if they would not be involved. But oil still pays off better for them and they are interested that it stays that way as long as possible.

jaro

Coal cannot be used again in the amounts it was at the beginning of 20th century due to pollution it would generate. For the next 100 years we will have to keep using nuclear power plants (if we are lucky then less time). Oil needs to be preserved for usage in materials. Nuclear waste is not so devastating to the environment as burning coal, Austrian fear from nuclear energy probably stems from lack of experience running these plants, lack of knowledge about it and experience of horrible accident in Tschernobyl (which is not likely in todays nuclear power plants). Storage of nuclear waste isn't an issue for us, since after several decades it is sent back to Russia, where they probably store it somewhere in Siberia. Wind power plants cannot be used as the main source of power in many countries since you cannot afford to have an outage during daytime just because its calm at the moment.

__________________
No loyalty towards the EU.

In Russia is freedom of speech. In America is also freedom after speech. -- Yakov Smirnoff

Slartibartfas

I highly doubt its because of a lack of knowledge how to run it. Austria has constructed a nuclear power plant itself. In fact it did not need much more than press the button anymore to ignite it. It never entered service though because the people got the chance to vote in a referendum about it and voted it down. Shortly afterwards came Chernobyl with Austria being one of the hardest hit country in the west in regards to radiation. Both things in combination created a perhaps unique atmosphere with lasting effect.

Planning to get the ruin into business again or build a new nuclear plant is not avoided because of a lack of skills, its avoided because it would be nothing short of absolute political suicide for any government.

I am rather neutral on nuclear power, ie I am quite opposed to it, but I see the necessity to hold at least the current capacities which needs urgent reinvestments. I think furthermore the mainstream Austrian position against Temelin is not justified.

Its true, but windpower was never planned to become the main electricity source. 10-20% should be feasible though. Its mentionworthy that off shore wind power is quite superior in the electricity production to on land wind parks. The energy is far more continuous than on land and also more efficient, thats the new trend when it comes to wind power btw.